Church of England Head Justin Welby Resigns In Shame After Sex Abuse Coverup

The head of the Church of England and the entire global Anglican community, Justin Welby, has resigned from his position after an investigation found that he’d failed to inform police about a serial sexual abuser who’d made Anglican church camps his hunting ground.

Welby, who led 85 million Anglicans in 165 countries as the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been under pressure to resign since the summer. Not because he has been eagerly cheerleading the denomination to support gay marriage and gingerly holding her hand as she descends into wokeness and sin, but rather because a recent report (which took five years to publish) concluded that church leadership failed to warn law enforcement and other members about the predations of John Smyth, a monstrous old pedophile who died in 2018 after molesting and physically abusing hundreds of boys over five decades.

The report concluded that upper echelons of church leadership had a firm knowledge of Smyth’s predations but said nothing, allowing him to continue to molest and abuse untold amounts of boys and young men for years to come.

Welby said in a statement:

I am deeply sorry that this abuse happened. I am so sorry that in places where these young men, and boys, should have felt safe and where they should have experienced God’s love for them, they were subjected to physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse. I am sorry that concealment by many people who were fully aware of the abuse over many years meant that John Smyth was able to abuse overseas and died before he ever faced justice. The report rightly condemns that behaviour.

I had no idea or suspicion of this abuse before 2013.

Nevertheless the review is clear that I personally failed to ensure that after disclosure in 2013 the awful tragedy was energetically investigated.

Though initially resisting calls to depart, he would later resignedly admit:

I believe that stepping aside is in the best interests of the Church of England, which I dearly love and which I have been honored to serve.”

Good.

Good riddance to two-fold sons of hell.

Notably, the key findings of the report include:

1.3 John Smyth was an appalling abuser of children and young men. His abuse was prolific, brutal, and horrific. His victims were subjected to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological, and spiritual
attacks. The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate and has permanently marked the
lives of his victims. John Smyth’s own family are victims of his abuse.

1.4 John Smyth’s activities were identified in the 1980s. Despite considerable efforts by individuals to
bring to the attention of relevant authorities the scope and horror of Smyth’s conduct, including by
victims and by some clergy, the steps taken by the Church of England and other organizations
and individuals were ineffective and neither fully exposed nor prevented further abuse by him.

1.5 Church officers and others were made aware of the abuse in the form of a key report in 1982
prepared by the Reverend Mark Ruston. The recipients of that report participated in an active
cover-up to prevent that report and its findings – including that crimes had been committed –
coming to light. There is no excuse or good explanation that justifies that decision. Different – and
we strongly suspect better, for subsequent victims – outcomes would have followed had
appropriate reports to the police and other statutory authorities been made then.

1.6 In line with the ToR, we have placed the actions of individuals and Church bodies in context, and
considered against the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time. An argument
which has been offered in order to partially explain John Smyth’s abuses is that they were
examples of over-enthusiastic corporal punishment. The conclusion of the Review is that he
committed criminal acts of gross abuse.

1.7 Further abuse could and should have been prevented. John Smyth’s victims were not sufficiently
supported by the Church and their views on escalating his abuse to the police and other
authorities were not sought.

1.8 In the period between 1984 and 2001, at which time John Smyth relocated to Zimbabwe and
subsequently South Africa, Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps
necessary to prevent further abuse occurring. Throughout this period – and particularly given the
Church’s adoption of formal safeguarding policies from 1995 – the Church had sufficient
knowledge of the abuse to have taken those steps.

1.9 The requirements of the safeguarding policies adopted by the Church, coupled with the moral
and legal responsibilities to which Church officers were subject, demanded that more be done.

1.10 There were individual failings by senior clergy, and clergy who subsequently became senior. That
grouping includes a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Bishops and Canons and
Reverends.

1.11 Following specific developments in 2012, from July 2013, the Church of England knew, at the
highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. John Smyth
should have been properly and effectively reported to the police in the UK and to relevant
authorities in South Africa. This represented a further missed opportunity to bring him to justice
and may have resulted in an ongoing and avoidable safeguarding threat in the period between
2012 and his death in 2018.

1.12 The Church’s reaction to the expose of John Smyth’s abuse by Channel 4 in February 2017 was
poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not
at the forefront in terms of thinking and planning; the response was not trauma-informed.